I think a lot of posters are missing a larger point. I hear an absurd amount of lamenting about the media, but I seldom hear how the right demands that the media toe the line. Guns and Ammo will face a huge backlash, at least for them anyway. The right is known for throwing disproportionate fits when a media outlet they have influence over even tries to cover a topic they consider taboo. This combined with plenty of encouragement from the power brokers has poisoned the discourse at every level that matters. The number fanatics we have in America has reached epidemic levels, and the psychological unhealthy conditions that have helped foster them are only getting worse for many. I'm not expecting the whole country to just boil over, but I believe we have (tens of?) millions of very damaged people that will need to be addressed. Oh, and those people are armed, angry and irrational also they hate your guts. Good luck with that.

LarryDan43:The NRA doesn't give a fark about your freedoms. They just want your donations and dues to pay for their never ending fight.

Taking your statement at face value:If there was no freedom, they wouldn't need to fight and there would be no need for donations ad dues. Hence, they care deeply about this freedom. Your point makes no sense.

brownribbon:I'm not a teabagger and i don't want to compromise on any of my civil rights, including gun ownership.

That's simply not realistic. All constitutional rights are subject to limitations and balancing tests, and always have been since the birth of the Republic. It is hard to imagine how society would operate were our constitutional rights absolute and unbending.

sprawl15:Dimensio: The clause does not prohibit Congress from passing legislation prohibiting possession of a class of firearms at some future time and mandating that current owners destroy or surrender them prior to that date.The legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; It may declare new crimes and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; it may command what is right and prohibit what is wrong, but it cannot change innocence into guilt or punish innocence as a crime or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract or the right of private property. To maintain that our federal or state legislature possesses such powers if it had not been expressly restrained would, in my opinion, be a political heresy altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments.-Calder v. Bull, landmark ex post facto case

Even prohibition wasn't a regulation against possession of extant alcohol or consumption of the same, it was about manufacture, sale, or transportation.

Wait, you think that once a gun is legally owned that it can never be outlawed? Because that has definitely happened. I just want to make sure your objection is clear.

BMulligan:brownribbon: I'm not a teabagger and i don't want to compromise on any of my civil rights, including gun ownership.

That's simply not realistic. All constitutional rights are subject to limitations and balancing tests, and always have been since the birth of the Republic. It is hard to imagine how society would operate were our constitutional rights absolute and unbending.

And those limitations are on how we can use those rights, not on the rights themselves. We ban yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater, not the word 'fire.'

inglixthemad:Magazine size is unimportant, but don't you dare regulate the size because it's important.

Who says it is unimportant? That argument is what I hear from the gun control side more than the gun rights side.

Overall, it provides a convienience that you don't have to reload as much. It also has drawbacks and you rifle sometimes is not as easy to shoot off of a rest or bench. It has its pros and cons, but I don't hear many gun-rights folks saying that it is unimportant.

BMulligan:brownribbon: I'm not a teabagger and i don't want to compromise on any of my civil rights, including gun ownership.

That's simply not realistic. All constitutional rights are subject to limitations and balancing tests, and always have been since the birth of the Republic. It is hard to imagine how society would operate were our constitutional rights absolute and unbending.

Personally, I wish they were more skewed towards the absolute and unbending side, rather than the free speech zones, eminent domain grabs, Patriot Acts, exigent circumstances and no knock warrants crap we have today.

odinsposse:sprawl15: Dimensio: The clause does not prohibit Congress from passing legislation prohibiting possession of a class of firearms at some future time and mandating that current owners destroy or surrender them prior to that date.The legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; It may declare new crimes and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; it may command what is right and prohibit what is wrong, but it cannot change innocence into guilt or punish innocence as a crime or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract or the right of private property. To maintain that our federal or state legislature possesses such powers if it had not been expressly restrained would, in my opinion, be a political heresy altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments.-Calder v. Bull, landmark ex post facto case

Even prohibition wasn't a regulation against possession of extant alcohol or consumption of the same, it was about manufacture, sale, or transportation.

Wait, you think that once a gun is legally owned that it can never be outlawed? Because that has definitely happened. I just want to make sure your objection is clear.

As I recall, the "assault weapons ban" enacted in the city of New York in the 1990s had no "grandfather clause", and owners of banned firearms were required to surrender or otherwise dispose of them.

BMulligan:brownribbon: I'm not a teabagger and i don't want to compromise on any of my civil rights, including gun ownership.

That's simply not realistic. All constitutional rights are subject to limitations and balancing tests, and always have been since the birth of the Republic. It is hard to imagine how society would operate were our constitutional rights absolute and unbending.

What are you implying ? You think people should 'bend' on womens rights or on the issue of slavery ?

Would you tell a person who is gay they can't get married or have a job because no ones rights are absolute ? Sorry sir, you are black, we can't serve you any food.... ?

blastoh:Skeptos: It's hilarious to see gun fetishists pretending that they're the last line of defense between us and a tyrannical federal government. As if a bunch of fat middle-aged guys with AR-15s would be able to take on a Marine Air-Ground Task Force.

It's funny of course because Cornwallis had the same cynical 'you must be kidding' attitude about a bunch of dirt farmers in South Carolina and Virginia. How'd that one work out?

Stop lying."Well regulated" has meant "well regulated" since Geoffrey farking Chaucer was writing about gap-toothed widows.The argument that well regulated did not mean well regulated in 1789 is a lie: It's self-serving bullshiat.

I don't understand the argument. If the government goes nuts and turns against its citizens, why would it need to come to your house to take your guns? The government has drones, nukes, sarin, mustard gas, and any number of other weapons that don't require them to literally come to your house. The extremists have already guaranteed that the government has all the weapons it could want since Reagan took office. It's also weird how the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct but the 4th and 5th, far more pivotal to large-scale freedom, they couldn't give a flying crap about. They need to worry about the other rights cause once those are given away, those guns you have won't much effect on a totalitarian goverment's fighter jets.

Dimensio:As I recall, the "assault weapons ban" enacted in the city of New York in the 1990s had no "grandfather clause", and owners of banned firearms were required to surrender or otherwise dispose of them.

A similar ban was enacted in Cook County in Illinois.

Right. As well as the SKS mess in California at end of the 90s. There may be others but those are the most modern ones.

I just can't tell what sprawl is arguing for since making something that was once legal illegal happens constantly without violating Ex Post Facto.

Lt. Cheese Weasel:blastoh: Skeptos: It's hilarious to see gun fetishists pretending that they're the last line of defense between us and a tyrannical federal government. As if a bunch of fat middle-aged guys with AR-15s would be able to take on a Marine Air-Ground Task Force.

It's funny of course because Cornwallis had the same cynical 'you must be kidding' attitude about a bunch of dirt farmers in South Carolina and Virginia. How'd that one work out?

Your argument may hold water if the fat guy brigade had Apaches and Abrams.

Lt. Cheese Weasel:blastoh: Skeptos: It's hilarious to see gun fetishists pretending that they're the last line of defense between us and a tyrannical federal government. As if a bunch of fat middle-aged guys with AR-15s would be able to take on a Marine Air-Ground Task Force.

It's funny of course because Cornwallis had the same cynical 'you must be kidding' attitude about a bunch of dirt farmers in South Carolina and Virginia. How'd that one work out?

That issue was settled decisively in favor of federal government on April 9, 1865. I, for one, do not particularly care for the idea of a "do-over" that might involve the use of nuclear weapons. Should that become the case while I am still capable of bearing arms, I will be one of those shooting the traitors who take up arms against the United States.And "tyrannical"? Please identify any federal official who is suppressing your vote to the nearest US Attorney for prosecution.

DayeOfJustice:I don't understand the argument. If the government goes nuts and turns against its citizens, why would it need to come to your house to take your guns? The government has drones, nukes, sarin, mustard gas, and any number of other weapons that don't require them to literally come to your house. The extremists have already guaranteed that the government has all the weapons it could want since Reagan took office. It's also weird how the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct but the 4th and 5th, far more pivotal to large-scale freedom, they couldn't give a flying crap about. They need to worry about the other rights cause once those are given away, those guns you have won't much effect on a totalitarian goverment's fighter jets.

The sad part is the Founding Fathers meant for the 2nd Amendment to allow citizens to protect the government in case of a rebellion or invasion but thanks to anti-government extremists it's been corrupted into a national self-destruct button. And the people who believe they are the "well-regulated militia" are the same reason 40 miles outside of any major city the road signs are filled with tiny holes.

Which wasn't a confiscation. It was people refusing to get their weapons registered, being lazy and stupid through multiple grace periods until the courts said that people were given more than enough chances to register their weapon as an assault weapon and negated the last round. And there was no meaningful attempt to go and actually confiscate weapons. Which is pretty farking important when you're calling it a 'confiscation'.

Add safety classes to the curriculum in all public schools at the elementary or jr high level. Soon enough, the majority of the population will know how to safely handle guns. And there are no gun owner lists to freak out the tin foil brigade.

This was done in many places at least through the 1950's.

Great idea, but a lot of people will not allow their children to handle guns, so I wonder how effective it could be.

sprawl15:You'll have to cite the law. The NY State law from around the same time has an explicit grandfather clause.

I have located the specific text of the law in question. Note that the law includes no "grandfathering" provision, and no compensation is provided to owners who were forced by law to surrender their firearms.

DayeOfJustice:I don't understand the argument. If the government goes nuts and turns against its citizens, why would it need to come to your house to take your guns? The government has drones, nukes, sarin, mustard gas, and any number of other weapons that don't require them to literally come to your house. The extremists have already guaranteed that the government has all the weapons it could want since Reagan took office. It's also weird how the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct but the 4th and 5th, far more pivotal to large-scale freedom, they couldn't give a flying crap about. They need to worry about the other rights cause once those are given away, those guns you have won't much effect on a totalitarian goverment's fighter jets.

because blackie ofartbangbus is president and babby jeebuz. study it out

Right now it is next to impossible to bring a case against an individual who knowingly sells a gun to a criminal. Tracking gun sales will make it much more easy, making people less willing to do it, which means it will be harder for criminals to get guns.

Ensuring that you aren't selling to soemoen who has a right to own a gun doesn't seem overlyburdensome to me. IOn fact nto doing it seems downright negligient.

Unfortunately, the only people who ever speak up when it comes time to do anything more complicated than answering a phone poll are against it. Because, apparently, holding people accountable for their actions is a violation of some sort of imaginary freedom. And since the lunatics are the only ones who ever talk when it comes time to do anything harder than answer a phone poll, we don't get to have sensible things.

Shooting "sports" are not a physical activity by any meaningful definition. It's already bad enough that some schools have golf in gym. Let's not further dilute the already watered-down notion of what constitutes physical activity.

If you're going to teach gun safety as part of the curriculum, put it where it makes logical sense: health class. Although, like I said, I'd be a bit surprised if a number of schools don't already do this.

factoryconnection:The counter-argument is that, if we actually controlled the flow of guns person-to-person in the country, that the "good guys" would eventually stem the flow of guns to the "bad guys" through long-chain, person-to-person transfers. That is the most common way that criminals get armed. The "good guys" wouldn't want to have to answer for why Jimmy the Felon had the weapon that they bought three years ago.

This.

I wonder if any of them actually take the time to think about where the criminals get their guns from in the first place. It's not like the magically appear out of thin air. They start as legal guns and things go wrong from there. It's almost like they're afraid of being responsible for their gun, personally.

Add safety classes to the curriculum in all public schools at the elementary or jr high level. Soon enough, the majority of the population will know how to safely handle guns. And there are no gun owner lists to freak out the tin foil brigade.

This was done in many places at least through the 1950's.

Great idea, but a lot of people will not allow their children to handle guns, so I wonder how effective it could be.

Honestly, even just hammering the four basic rules of gun handling into their pulpy little brains would be worlds better than what we have now. And you don't even need a gun in the classroom to teach the four rules. I'd prefer comprehensive safety training and some time to actually teach them to shoot, but I know (for the reason you state) that would be a very hard sell. But the four rules need to be universally known.